12 November 2011 10:03 PM

This Government, like all before it, will only be happy when we have... The UK No Border Agency

This is Peter Hitchens' Mail on Sunday column

If anyone had ever asked us, we would have said that we did not want millions of people from Asia, the Balkans or the dead Soviet Empire migrating to this country.

This would have had nothing to do with bigotry, or racism or any of the other rude words flung at the British people by their ruling class of snooty elite liberals.

It does not take much to see that mass immigration is a daft idea. The most basic argument for it – that it helps the economy – is false.

We rightly complain that young people cannot get work. So why import foreigners to do that work, while paying our own children to take to crime and sit at home smoking dope?It makes no sense at all, not least because the South East of England is now one of the most crowded places on Earth, and feels that way.

And yet, here’s the mystery. Nobody wants it, and it is damaging – but it keeps on happening.

Some people were stupid enough to think that this was just a Labour problem. They were not paying attention.

The Tory Party has been keenly pro-immigration for decades.

It made this view clear as long ago as 1958 when party stewards violently silenced anti-immigration protesters at a Blackpool rally addressed by Harold Macmillan.

Many independent witnesses were shocked at the blood-spattered savagery of the beatings handed out to the hecklers.

They should not have been. The more liberal the Tory Party gets, the more ruthless it has to be to its own natural supporters. As usual, the amazing thing is that so many of those supporters carry on voting for it.

And so it goes on. I doubt if we shall ever know exactly who is to blame for the latest border fiasco. Theresa May, the liberal, PC Home Secretary, is protected by a mysterious media bodyguard of flatterers and defenders. But the reason for the mess remains the same as it has always been.

The elite wish to pretend that they sympathise with us about the problem.

But secretly they want to change the country for ever, and see mass immigration as the best way of doing this.

Those figures showing that most illegal migrants who arrive here are allowed to stay, or that foreign criminals are not deported, or that passport checks were skimped, are not evidence of government failure. Nothing much will be done about them.

They will be nearly as bad next year and the year after.

They are evidence that the real policy is and always has been to act against our wishes and interests. Everything else is a pretence.

The truth is the opposite of the public stance. It is typical that our major airports have all now got huge new signs proclaiming 'UK Border', just at the moment when that border has more or less ceased to exist.

One day, perhaps, those to blame for this disgrace will be punished. But I think it will by then be too late.

We are too trusting for our own good.

We ALL pay a terrible price for Britain's lethal motorways

If a train crash cost as many lives and hurt as many people as the M5 pile-up, the whole rail system would be paralysed by inquiries and speed restrictions.

In fact, our horribly dangerous roads still see thousands of needless deaths a year, but nobody does anything because all the misery comes in small packets, so that one or two homes mourn, and the rest of the nation carries on unaffected.

We do not see a pattern. The futile attempt to blame a firework display for the motorway horror is an example of this. The real problem is that such roads are unavoidably crammed with vehicles that are much too close together, travelling much too fast.

Just try driving on a British road at a reasonable speed, and at a sensible distance from the car in front. See how long it takes before some moron is nudging your back bumper and flashing his lights, or before another moron cuts into the space you have left.

As for fog, it is not exactly a surprise in November, is it? Yet since motorways were introduced here, people have driven too fast in such fog. It is amazing more people aren’t killed.

I’d plough up all the motorways in the country, and rebuild the rail network that Beeching trashed. Motorways are a horrible idea. They have ruined our countryside and our cities, and it’s no surprise to me that Adolf Hitler liked them so much.

But as long as we have them, the police should be made to patrol them properly, so that sane people have some protection against the thoughtless, homidical chancers who currently rule our roads.

Today, maths dunces like me don't stand a chance

I was never any good at maths. Only the dedicated patience of a great teacher helped me get the lowest possible grade at O-level.

These days I probably would not even know how bad I was at maths. There would be nobody around who could tell.

When Channel 4’s Dispatches programme tested 155 teachers in 18 schools, they found that most of them could not do simple calculations.How could such people have helped me? You cannot teach maths if you are hopeless at it yourself.

And I suspect the same goes, in many cases, for reading, writing and spelling.

Our schools have now been so bad for so long that those in charge are themselves ignorant. Worse, they may be unaware of it, or scared to admit it.

Do they fail to correct spelling mistakes because they don’t know how to spell themselves?

Do they struggle to teach reading because they are barely literate? It is all too possible. And how can such people have the blazing enthusiasm for books, history or science that makes the young want to learn?

It is useless to blame these teachers. They, like their pupils, are the victims of a cruel, 50-year experiment on defenceless human beings.

That experiment, known as ‘progressive education’, has conclusively failed. There is no better evidence than the vast disaster of our state comprehensive system that discipline, rigour, authority, selection and tradition are vital in the schooling of the young.

But the mad experiment seems to have smashed common sense, knowledge and thought so completely that there is now nobody left in the education establishment who is able to stop it. And so it goes on and on and on, wrecking lives and hopes.

All this time, the rich and powerful are exempt from it, and don’t care.

* * *

What can I do about the fact that my new mobile phone has opinions and wants to impose them on me? It is a paid-up member of the Global Warming cult.

Instead of just telling me that it is fully charged, it sternly orders me to save energy by unplugging the charger from the wall. Well, as I don’t believe in man-made global warming and reckon the amount of power involved is tiny, I shall of course ignore it.

But how long before it starts reporting me to the authorities?

If you want to comment on Peter Hitchens, click on Comments and scroll down

Share this article:

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

"Unplug your mobile phone"
Actually Peter, it does not save energy. The lump of coal at the power station that would have been used to charge your phone will still have been burnt because you might have decided to keep your phone plugged in. And that is what the boys and girls at the power station work on. "Peter might want to charge his phone, so we need to burn this amount of coal" - that's how it goes.

Graham is correct - the British voters were never tricked or misled about immigration (or crime), and have always had the option to stop voting for pro-crime MPs and pro mass immigration MPs. And the constituencies that can be relied on most by Labour to always vote for their pro-crime and pro-mass immigration candidates are those Labour heartlands most affected by crime and immigration, in which people complain the most about crime and immigration.

We have full representative democracy and still have partial free speech. Between them these two elements should be sufficient to completely end mass immigration as well as reducing crime to 1% of its present level within a few years, as well as to restore full free speech. But voters do not choose these things.

Bryan Dentman is also correct when he says “I think many see voting Labour as hereditary and in a sense divorced from issue of actual politics. I honestly believe that the legions of older men in working men's clubs who do little else but complain of immigration, crime and the attitude of the young fail to acknowledge the contribution their electoral choices have made. Gordon Brown was right to hold people such as Gillian Duffy in contempt.”

But as well as the men in working men’s clubs voting for the party with the views most opposite to their own, Labour, many recent immigrants also vote for the Labour party despite it having the opposite views to their own. Many are appalled at the idea that the school authorities want to allow ‘sex educators’ to tell their primary children all about sex, yet these same people vote in large numbers for the Labour Party, which is the party most keen on sex education for their very young children. I spoke to one such parent the other day, who is appalled at the disrespect shown in schools to teachers and adults, and yet who supports Labour which is the party most committed to anarchy in schools and the sabotaging of education. The parent I spoke to says he support Labour because ‘they stick up for the common man’. He is doing all he can to get his child into one of the few remaining grammar schools, whilst voting for the party that is most keen to close them. The MPs that take the votes of such types as he must despise them as much as Gordon Brown despises Gillian Duffy

Something has caught Miss Thompson’s eye
(O worldliness! O vanity!),
A pair of slippers – scarlet plush.
Miss Thomson feels a conscious blush
Suffuse her face, as though her thought
Had ventured further than it ought.

From Miss Thompson Goes Shopping
Martin Armstrong (1882-1974).

Teresa May might, I suspect, permit herself a little blush at the sight of an exotic, over-priced, pair of slippers, but would not think twice before buying them. I get the impression that this characterizes her political approach too. Consequently, she may affect some pinkness to the cheeks over the number of people she has allowed to slips into the country unchecked, but there is no real concern because she knows the open borders idea was bought into a long time ago by our political elite. Therefore, I don’t really see a sockless Cameron, a Hush-Puppied Clarke, or (if the boot was on another foot) any of Labour’s Millipedes doing anything other than to approve the a slipshod approach. The indigenous people end up paying one way or another – concerns and opinions downtrodden once more.

A Libertarian “tribal voting allegiances.... But, rather depressingly, doesn’t this mean that we are all doomed? After all, there would appear to be no way back from such blatant and rampant bribery of the masses. 13 November “

Yes, we are all doomed, unless, as mikebarnes says, events take a sudden turn. No-one predicted the arab risings or the collapse of Soviet communism. Perhaps the collapse of the EU or national bankruptcy will trigger events. Or something else. By ‘doomed’ I mean ruled more and more by the lower types amongst the population (By ‘lower types’ I mean that section of the white population whose opinions are represented by the BBC) taking over positions of authority, who promote other lower types by using commitment to ‘equality and diversity’ as the criteria for promotion in place of personal qualities. This leads to a society that is less civilised, has no justice in the justice system, is poorer, uneducated – despite everyone having a ‘degree’ - , more corrupt – like living under communism in fact, which is another system that selects the lower types for promotion. Sadly, the Russian experience shows that these types cannot be shaken off even when the population gets sick of them.

I think Peter Hitchens once said words to the effect that our current/recent civilised state with freedom is more fragile and harder to attain then most people assume. Certainly it has many opponents represented by the left, and our wealth and democracy has allowed the enemies of civilisation to take over and guide us off the cliff.

One might have thought a few decades ago that as we were, at that time, still some distance from the cliff edge that voters would realise the error of their ways as we got closer to the cliff edge. But no. And now that we have actually left the cliff edge, and the decline is becoming more and more rapid, still people do not realise that they are the cause of our decline by voting for those who hate this country, its culture, its people and its customs.

@ Demetriou.
What is Barnes on about. Demetriou opines .Sorry old chap I'll explain . To expand this blog to your satisfaction and indeed the two offering slight support. ( Are you keeping up) good, I'll continue. It would then require extra hands. They do not come cheap.
Just as extra hands at Heathrow would expand the wage bill. Thus those extra baggage clerks pay would be reflected in your ticket price. Much to the annoyance of those that were happy with the status quo, before your intervention and complaint that Heathrow was becoming boring and slow .

What is Barnes on about? Why would or should I personally pay for extra moderators? Ridiculous. If I don't like the service at Heathrow airport, does that mean I should pay for the replacement of baggage clerks? Please get some perspective, Barnes. I know that's hard, supporting the political entity that you do, but please try.

Glad to see elsewhere people supporting my opinions. Doesn't happen often, but even the stuck clock that is Hitchens blog and company can get it right once or twice a day.

In the excerpt from realclimate, the author is perfectly justified in using the term 'could' because he isn't trying to make a decisive argument for the position that Co2 caused the temperature to increase historically. His purpose there is to show that the contrary argument is not decisive because there is another possibility; hence the word 'could'.

I respect your wish to have it formulated as precisely as possible. I'm sure you will find that those kind of statements have been made if you do the research. I will only say now that given what I stated in my original post, wouldn't it be extremely strange if 0% of the warming over the last 150 years was caused by the human emissions of Co2? I mean C02 increases the temperature FACT, we've added an enormous amount to the atmosphere FACT, and surprise surprise the temperature has risen.

@ Terry The name Greenland comes from Scandinavian settlers. In the Norse sagas, it is said that Erik the Red was exiled from Iceland for murder. He, along with his extended family and thralls (slaves), set out in ships to find the land that was rumored to be to the northwest. After settling there, he named the land Grønland ("Greenland"), possibly in order to attract more people to settle there. Greenland was also called Gruntland ("Ground-land") on early maps. Whether Green is an erroneous transcription of Grunt ("Ground"), which refers to shallow bays, or vice versa, is not known. It should also be noted, however, that the southern portion of Greenland (not covered by glacier) is indeed very green, at least in summer.
Answer by jack_dan on yahoo questions, 5 years ago.

Jerry, your correct in noticing that Big Business is continually criticising the work ethic or lack of educational attainment of the British youth.

But its an unfair comparison - because an immigrant is by definition an ambitious type of individual. And even if that immigrant was not a particularly exceptional person, they would only make an upheaval to a foreign country if they had a particular skill which they knew they could capitalise on. So we are not comparing like with like. Big Business knows this but their agenda is pro-EU, lowering wage costs, and increasing corporate power. If they could, im sure that they would ‘import’ every new job from Europe.

Its interesting to note that small-business is ambivalent or even anti-EU. Small business suffers more proportionately speaking from EU bureaucracy, than does a large company that can afford to staff an admin department to deal with its paperwork. And big business has the financial clout to lobby for EU rules which favour themselves at the detriment of small business. So, for example, is big business really against increasing ‘regulation’ and new ‘standards’? I suspect that the net benefit for them is a more secure closed-shop environment and which helps protect them from real competition.

@ A Scott.
You obviously cannot add two and two. If you could you must surely realise Mr Hitchens prefers single carriage roads . 8 lane motorways is in his view are not the flavour of the month .neither in fact, or as a description of his Blog.
Why must everything be fast today. Fast is good ,I think not. All best things took time. Plus this site is sponsored, I believe differently to others. Perhaps the likes of Demetiou and his mottley followers could fork out for extra moderators. I suspect they demand more than minimum wage. Or alternately Spend more time on blogs of their own.
Jerry Owen
Surely you know the answers to thast question posed. British is not exactly how I'd describe myself . But English, Scottish, Welsh. Are distinct indigenous groups .the fact many deny this,is of no never mind . Its a fact you recognise just as most do. All opposition to it is Marxism in practice. They say our land is in constant flux .
But West Indians are not indians or from the west . Most if not all countries have a history of population movements. The Kon Tiki expeditions proved that . Its just we the Brits are problematical in that because of history. Any attempt therefore to fog the issue regarding us. helps them in their conquest of the West.
By the way I'm only half English. Half French. and all for who I am. Never let anyone tell you your not whop you are .Especially those nerdy little marxist grubs.

Can anyone tell me why there is no such thing as 'Britishness' no such thing as an 'indigenous Briton' when it comes to culture, heritage or history according to our liberal ruling class. But when it comes to every Johnny foreigner coming across to Britain it's because apparently they work harder have a better work ethic and are more reliable than the 'British worker'?

'Motorway Madness'.
Point taken,--correction, dual carriageway, both 70mph.
The rest was recorded on the examiners report.
The point being that drivers are encouraged to drive to the maximum limit now , not to the condition of the road.

Peter Jack (13 Nov 3:19pm) calls for a mass London protest so that ‘they HAVE to listen’. I agree, but who I wonder would be the ‘popular public figure’ you mention who would organise this? All media types are essentially (in their public-persona-mode anyhows) liberal/left creatures, the only exceptions that spring to mind are Ricky Gervais and David Starkie. Perhaps others can think of other right-of-centre media type that could step forward and offer their services here?

But in terms of protest - there is much anger being expressed by a sizeable (growing?) minority. Unfortunately, their philosophy is the usual left-wing dogma and offers no real base from which a true reforming agenda might have a chance to grow. Great historical reformers of the past got their way by offering alternatives that could be sold as win-win solutions to a critical mass of decision makers. For example, the elites in this country will not accept a redistribution of wealth, but they might be interested in new business/economic/banking models. After all, even the Governor of the Bank of England was suggesting some radical ideas last year.

Graham (13 Nov 5:29pm) states that ‘no respectable Algerian or Vietnamese would sit around doing nothing while their country was given away to aliens’. Graham, I am 100% with you on the sentiment that you express. But for me, your use of the word respect is very telling. Does the average indigenous Britain respect this country, its institutions or even their fellow citizens anymore? Do our leaders respect us the voters? Do employers respect their employees? Do nurses respect their elderly patients….?

… depressingly, I would personally answer ’no’ to all the above.

I dp take your point about the Queen (and bye the way, its her 60th Jubillee). Mr Hitchin’s has similarly commented here about the lack of interest our Monarch has shown over the changing face of Britain. I seem to recall that Mr H. thinks that she should dissolve parliament, or some such – now that would be a breaking news story!

Jim New Lewisham (13 Nov 12:22pm), you pose the question of immigration in a way that I have not seen asked since the 1990’s -but I must say that it is refreshing to hear it posed in such a way. Back in the 90’s, before it became apparent about the numbers involved, people wanted to understand why individual immigrants wanted to come here to work as cleaners or to help harvest vegetables. The answer lies in an understanding of the type of life these low skilled workers lead back in their home countries. Some of these countries were only just emerging from under the oppression of communism. So, for most immigrants, this life change would potentially result in a huge life style change for their children and successive generations. For most of these immigrants, this was not new, for their families had been travelling across Europe for many years if not generations. Leaving aside any conspiracy theories, I still believe this reveals one of the fundamental problems of this type of immigration. Most of these economic migrants are perfectly comfortable with supplanting their home with a new one in Britain because over time, they will be joined by their extended family. The wages they receive here are not that attractive, but Britain does also offer many safety nets, such as benefits and housing. Given the sheer numbers involved, such immigration policy would have been deemed unsustainable years ago. You say that you deliver to businesses and I would hazard a guess that these are large businesses? It is these same big businesses who receive most benefit from mass immigration - we all understand how wages are driven down - but social cohesion is also weakened. Big business is in favour of European integration (have you noticed how negative it is on school leaver skills and work ethic? they might be correct, but what is their real agenda here?) whereas small business is against. Personally, that is all I need to know, because in today’s globalised economy, one of the great unspoken changes is the diminishing of the nation state. Historically we have enjoyed a minimal level of democracy, the EU is still lerking in the wings, but it seems we will all be soon working under a proxy fascist business model.

Posted by: C Cronin | 15 November 2011 at 12:23 PM
A couple of questions did you vote in the recent referendum on voting reform? If so how did you vote?

There was the perfect opportunity to start the process of having more than just the option of voting for the "teddy bear" in the appropriate coloured rosette. However the good old British public were apparently not only "too dim" to understand the complexities of STV but also that if they want more options they need a system that gives non centrist views a chance of getting a toe hold in the political process. As long as all we have is FPTP the tyranny of the centre will continue.

I know Mr Hitchens and others are not really democrats, (he said so specifically recently I think) they appear want to appoint themselves the right to decide who gets to vote? Or by some other unspecified route guarantee that only decent, honest, upstanding, "real" conservative folk get to vote this way they will ensure we ruled by the same for ever and ever.

But meanwhile in the real world consider that on its last showing even under the STV system proposed in the referendum UKIP might have achieved a few MP's in parliament. A full or fuller PR system would have seen them with a presence in parliament.

To many on here for me seem to want to moan about folk not voting as they do, but are not prepared to support change in the system to give themselves more proportionate representation. Change does not happen by magic.

I see that deaths on the roads have gone up this year so the police and government are going to address this.
Is it any wonder there is an increase in accidents when we have over half a million new encumbants arriving on our shores each year not conversant with our road systems?
My experience being a twice weekly user of the M3 is that young girls in particular are a danger as many seem to be happy texting at some 80mph in the 'fast' lane. I would be happy to see an instant ban for a year for anyone caught using a phone whilst driving.
The danger of the above compared to my six points for speeding just over thirty in a thirty twice ( have learnt my lesson ) is incomparable.
As for tearing up the motorways for railways l doubt many village people will agree,since the advent of the motorway huge lorries no longer hurtle down 'A' roads inches away from old houses and shops vibrating them to pieces.
Some years ago my wife and I went to the motorcycle show in Birmingham, we used the train, it cost a fortune it was slow it was full of noisy kids. The following year we went by car, it was quicker cheaper and quiter. This disparity has to be addressed before any new railways are built at the expense of roads.

@ John Demetriou - dear me, you seem like a pretty disgruntled sort of guy. You've commented before expressing your dissatisfaction with the standard of posts (and those who post) on this blog. Why do you bother coming back if it irks you so much? It's not like it's compulsory. I certainly wouldn't waste my time with it if it induced even a fraction of the contempt that it seems to induce in you. Life's too short!

@ T Proctor
I believe it is still illegal for provisional licence holders to use Motorways. Even with an examiner aside them . So veracity in the claims of your young neighbours story are doubtful also.

Brian Meredith.
the figures you quote seem outdated as most modern cars can easily stop within 100 ft fron 70 mph in dry conditions. Those figures quoted in the Highway code ha
ve remained a such from the good old days when brakes were seen as a luxury. The main reasons for this crash and many others. speed relative to other forces. Cruise controls, comfort ,boredom, Sat nav, and very poor understanding of safe driving. If everything travells in the same direction at 100 mph then 100 mph is safe If one comes across an unexpected problem like smoke on the road, then that speed ,the comfort and other distractions like music or sat nav. will all be thrown into the soup as well as at least some of the 27 not having a clue what to do.
Sometimes speed can save you . Slamming on ones brakes and losing control is probably the worst, if as is likely some fool thinking his vehicle as a penis extension ,will be close on your tail. The result a Domino effect .
No time, is put aside to teach folk avoidance tactics ,self preservation. and mostly care for other road users. If drivers all drove thinking the car in front ,the car behind and the car overtaking you ,or the car you are overtaking. Are driven by imbiclies, on medication. with homecidal tendencies. Then peace would brake out on all roads.
So I therefore believe every driver on passing his test ,must now embark on an advanced test whereby learning to expect the unexpected. and how to deal with it.
I'll alwaysremember my driving test .On passing the examiner stated . During this test you exibited good control and handling . Making you one of the best drivers in the world . But no doubt when you leave this test centre and drive home you will become the worst.
But then the cars we drove had accelerations of zero to sixty in a fortnight, unlike the unguide missiles in- experienced kids of today drive.

I am an OAP or these days known as a Senior Citizen. Politics sometimes appear alien to me but some things just should not be happening.. I read an article in the Mail on Saturday 12th November 2011 by Colin Fernandez regarding Mohamed Bouzalim. Then I saw your article and the piece I part of it I have copied below, which I totally agree with. I do wonder what is happening in Britain and would like to see the Great return.

(The elite wish to pretend that they sympathise with us about the problem.
But secretly they want to change the country for ever, and see mass immigration as the best way of doing this.
Those figures showing that most illegal migrants who arrive here are allowed to stay, or that foreign criminals are not deported, or that passport checks were skimped, are not evidence of government failure. Nothing much will be done about them.
They will be nearly as bad next year and the year after.)

Another article in the Mail on the 13th November by Simon Walters and Glen Owen ...about who should live in the Met's Curtis Green area........the way Britain is going....just let all the illegal immigrants live in their 'backyard'...and see how they like it !!!

As a closing note ..two weeks ago I was in London in one of the main streets and I could have been anywhere overseas but it was not like the Capital City I remember. Need I explain why??????

The point you make about people still voting for these political parties that carry out policies nobody really wants is one that vexes me daily. Be they Conservative or Labour, or even the odd Liberal, they blindly vote just as they and their family always have. This of course makes it easy for local politicians to play on their loyaly and so get away with doing very little for that community whilst in some cases lining their own pockets. If the electorate just had the sense to withdraw their support (vote) for these vacuous dishonest parties or vote for a smaller party like UKIP, maybe just maybe it would concentrate the minds of the political elite. I won't hold my breath!

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear on this weblog until the moderator has approved them. They must not exceed 500 words. Web links cannot be accepted, and may mean your whole comment is not published.